And it's still hard to hold bad actors accountable. Especially if you don't have the foresight to identify them perfectly.
In any system like Uber where dispatching, metering, and payment are all handled by devices, no foresight is required, and it is trivial to hold bad actors accountable. An untrackable actor can't even pick someone up, much less be paid.
There were informational problems which hindered market mechanisms from working, but those problems are now solved. The musty regulations, and the fears that drove them, are anarchronistic curiosities of a bygone era.
An untrackable actor can't pick someone up or be paid, but how hard is it for the actor to lie to the system? How hard is it for them to change their identity to the system? How hard is it for the counterparty to cause problems and how hard is it for him to change his identity?
And what if there are competitors to Uber? What if these competitors, as part of their attempt to get a wider car network refuse to rate those actors? Why would anyone want to be on the Uber network if they can get jobs on the other one? This isn't a static problem. There are a lot of dynamic variables in play and you're hoping that random action will lead to a steady state that is optimum for all the system participants.
But not all game systems work like that.
I'm not saying that Uber ought to be shut down outright. I just think it's ridiculous to assert that all regulation can be torn up just because certain metrics can be tracked.
It's harder for an actor to masquerade under an Uber-style system than traditional regulation. Every move is tracked, and customers could even get photographs of registered drivers via their own trusted channel -- as opposed to the easily-faked licensing documents carried by traditional cabs. (Big cities sometimes have 'gypsy cabs' whose markings and meters can be hard for even local police to distinguish from licensed cabs.)
And what if there are competitors? As long as all of them are branded, and can be reviewed on third-party sites, customers can decide whether they like the power of driver reviews, or some other mechanism for checking abuses.
You're right, it is dynamic. Who moves faster, an Uber-like enterprise or a decades-old insider-controlled city regulatory bureau? Which tends towards satisfying riders faster? There was a decade of complaints about how awful SF taxis were before Uber arrived... but the last-century regulatory assumptions protected incumbents from the pressure for change.
There were once upon a time conditions A, B, C that made it hard for customers to assess cab rates, routes, and reliability. Those specific factors led to regulations X, Y, Z.
But now for users of technology, conditions A, B, and C are gone. Anonymous pick-ups are precluded by design. Wild-goose routing to plump up fares or misleading riders about prevailing rates are both much harder... and even if you manage such a scam a little, there's no more disappearing into the night afterwards with your ill-gotten gains: there's an indelible reputational and transactional trail allowing redress. All the X, Y, Z regulations specifically created because of the 20th-century limitations are obsolete and should be nullified as soon as possible. You don't need to be brainstorming new 'what if' rationales for them, in advance of any extant problems.
I just think it's insane to say that there is one best meta-solution for all problems. I don't think regulation is the perfect response to every issue just as I don't think that the market is the perfect response.
It's harder for an actor to masquerade under an Uber-style system than traditional regulation. Every move is tracked, and customers could even get photographs of registered drivers via their own trusted channel -- as opposed to the easily-faked licensing documents carried by traditional cabs. (Big cities sometimes have 'gypsy cabs' whose markings and meters can be hard for even local police to distinguish from licensed cabs.)
Uh, no. I don't know what podunk city you live in, but in my city, cabs must have GPS devices, driver's licenses, and a medallion, in addition to specially marked cars. All of these are inspected at least yearly, compared to Uber's one-and-done verification system.
And what if there are competitors? As long as all of them are branded, and can be reviewed on third-party sites, customers can decide whether they like the power of driver reviews, or some other mechanism for checking abuses.
I'm sure some drunk guy will have to presence of mind to review multiple car services at 3am in the morning. Cab services are regulated because the passenger has no or limited choice in their selection or their ability to review the available cars.
But now for users of technology, conditions A, B, and C are gone. Anonymous pick-ups are precluded by design.
Uh, no. See drunk guy at a bar at 3am, above. Uber does not solve this. Technology is not the magical solution to everything. Regulation exists to solve problems in this area which technology cannot, and especially in Uber's case, does not solve.
Indeed, if anything, Uber simply makes the fraud problem worse. Because there's very little to stop someone from scamming Uber, and there's a lot of financial incentive for Uber to downplay or even hide fraud.
In any system like Uber where dispatching, metering, and payment are all handled by devices, no foresight is required, and it is trivial to hold bad actors accountable. An untrackable actor can't even pick someone up, much less be paid.
There were informational problems which hindered market mechanisms from working, but those problems are now solved. The musty regulations, and the fears that drove them, are anarchronistic curiosities of a bygone era.